Monitoring [A Doll’s House]
by
Pegah Tabassinejad
B.A. (Theatre/Directing), University of Art, 2007
Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Fine Arts
in the
School for the Contemporary Arts
Faculty of Communication, Art and Technology
© Pegah Tabassinejad 2012
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Fall 2012
Approval
Name:
Pegah Tabassinejad
Degree:
Master of Fine Arts (Interdisciplinary Art)
Title of Thesis:
Monitoring [A Doll’s House]
Examining Committee:
Chair: Arne Eigenfeldt
Associate Professor
Steven Hill
Senior Supervisor
Assistant Professor
DD Kugler
Supervisor
Professor
James Long
External Examiner
Artistic Director
Theatre Replacement
Date Defended/Approved: November 26, 2012
ii
Partial Copyright Licence iii
Abstract
Monitoring [A Doll’s House] is a performance-installation that sits somewhere between
theatre and visual art. The project consists of three scheduled theatrical performances
(based on Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House) and an installation with performances
transmitted through Skype. It testifies to a continued interest in notions of distance and
privacy as well as everyday surveillance. As defined in the context of my research on
presence in theater performances, it investigated the interrelation between presence and
absence, by exploring the distances that exist between various elements of the
performance: the distances between the actors and their characters, the actors and the
audience and the time of the play and the time of the performance. Using Gilbert
Simmondon’s idea of individuation and milieu, the project explored liminality in the
presence of the performance. Featuring seven actors who were performing four main
characters from Ibsen’s play, the project examines the construction of character through
the audience’s perception and actors’ embodiment.
Keywords:
postdramatic theatre; performative installation; performativity; character;
indviduation and milieu; presence
iv
Dedication
Dedicated to Bazi Theater Company
and my father Jamal Tabassinejad
who always encouraged me to study
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my gratitude to Steven Hill for our great conversations and his
encouragements. Without him this long, difficult journey would have been impossible.
Thank you to DD Kugler for being on my committee and who patiently checked every
single draft of my writings during these years at SFU.
I would like to specially thank: Judy Radul, who always gave me excellent critiques and
sources to study and whose practice and writings inspired me most; Colin Browne, who
kindly spent hours and hours talking with me about my ideas, projects, dreams; who
carefully observed my practice within these years and always encouraged me to write;
and want to extend my appreciation to Dr. Laura Marks who generously helped me to
find the theory that suits my practice through our fantastic conversations. She opened up
the world of Simmondon to me.
Thank you to everyone who collaborated and contributed to the projects I worked on
during my time at SFU, especially the creative team, the ensemble and the production
team of Monitoring [A Doll’s House].
I would like to acknowledge the generous support my friends: Mehdi Kashani who
patiently helped me with editing my papers and translating my plays; Bahar Nourizadeh
who documented my complicated projects with her great artistic taste; and specially
Bojan Bodružic who incredibly supported me during the process of my thesis with giving
me his valuable point of views on not only many aspects of the performance, but also on
editing many different drafts.
Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Arne Eigenfeldt, as the chair program, for his great
support of managing the difficulties and am very grateful for the technical support of the
Simon Fraser University, which has enabled me to present my practice.
vi
Table of Contents
Approval............................................................................................................................. ii Partial Copyright Licence.................................................................................................. iii Abstract............................................................................................................................. iv Dedication..........................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ................................................................................................................. viii 1.
Monitoring [A Doll’s House]...................................................................................1
1.1. Artist Statement ........................................................................................................1 1.2. Distance ....................................................................................................................2 1.2.1. Distance in Acting: Performing the Stars ......................................................4 1.2.2. Distance in Space: Glass Walls ....................................................................7 1.3. Privacy: The Distance of the Gaze! ........................................................................10 References .....................................................................................................................13 Appendices ....................................................................................................................14 Appendix A. The liminality of the presence of the performers: A research on
character’s Individuation ..........................................................................15 Bibliography ............................................................................................................15 Appendix B. Script: Monitoring [A Doll’s House]............................................................31 Dramatis Personae .................................................................................................31 ACT I.......................................................................................................................32 ACT II......................................................................................................................48 ACT III.....................................................................................................................57 Appendix C. DVD: Monitoring [A Doll’s House] Video Files ..........................................66 Credits ....................................................................................................................66 Description ..............................................................................................................66 Filenames ...............................................................................................................66 vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Video Documentation Still, Oct. 21st 2012 ..........1 Figure 2. The diagrams of the positive and negative image of the performance ............4 Figure 3. Gena Roalands in Woman Under the Influence as Natalie Schneck’s
Source for the character Nora .........................................................................6 Figure 4. Video Documentation Still, Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Oct. 21st 2012 ..........6 Figure 5. Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Video Documentation Still, Oct. 21st
2012 .................................................................................................................8 Figure 6. Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Video Documentation Still, Oct. 21st 2012 ..........9 Figure 7, Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Video Documentation Still, Oct. 20th 2012 ..........11 Figure 8. Monitoring [A Doll’s House]-Installation, Skype Snapshots, Oct. 20th ............12 viii
1. Monitoring [A Doll’s House]
1.1. Artist Statement
My MFA thesis project Monitoring [A Doll’s House] sits somewhere between
theatre and visual art. The project consisted of three scheduled theatrical performances
(based on Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House), which took place between 8PM and 9PM
on Oct. 19-21, 2012, and a live installation (through Skype) that ran between
performances. Monitoring [A Doll’s House], including the performances and live
installation, featured seven actors who were performing four main characters from
Ibsen’s A Doll’s House live on stage during the scheduled performances. They were also
performing these characters virtually as well as being under the surveillance camera on
Skype in the hours in between the performances. This project was almost a 50-hour
durational piece that had repeated a structure of a virtual and a theatrical performance
through 3 days. Audiences had the freedom to move around, use several different seats
that had been placed for them and get as close or as far away from the piece as they
wished. The performance was not happening on a delineated stage, as the space
suggested a kind of gallery viewing.
Figure 1. Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Video Documentation Still, Oct. 21st 2012
1
1.2. Distance
Monitoring [A Doll’s House] testifies to a continued interest in notions of distance
and privacy within interiors as well as everyday surveillance. One might say traditional
concept of theatre might be defined as a group of people gathering together, at a certain
time, in a certain location, to look through the imaginary 4th wall to the private life of
others. Outsiders (the public) look at the private moment of the insiders (fictional
individuals). At this time, the time of the performance, this group of people will agree to
imagine to be at the time of the play, where (as John Searle is suggesting1) actors
pretend to be fictional characters. The relation between the time of the play and the time
of the performance is at the heart of the discourse for post-modern theatre2. Inevitably
the notion of time suggests presence: one is suggesting the presence of the fiction,
including the characters and the play; whereas the other implies the presence of the
performance, including the performers and the audience. The latter values the now of
the performance. The performance (or according to Guy Debord Spectacle) is all about
exteriority and separation3. This separation requires understanding the distance that
separates the audience from the performers; the performers from their characters; the
performance from the play; the time of the performance from the time of the play. One
could say the performance is mediated within these distances and plays with the arrival
and departure of presence. In Monitoring [A Doll’s House] my attempt was to explore
these ideas of presence4. I was aiming to create a performance that would be mediated
within these distances. The practices of artists working in experimental theater such as
1
2
3
4
“A fictional story is a pretended representation of a state of affairs; but a play, that is, a play
as performed, is not a pretended representation of a state of affairs but the pretended state of
affairs itself, the actors pretend to be the characters.” (Presence in Play: A Critique of
Theories of Presence in the Theatre 11)
“The “Now” of the dramatic fiction has often stood in a problematic relation to the “Now” of the
dramatic medium- the stage and its physical properties.” (Presence in Play: A Critique of
Theories of Presence in the Theatre 16)
“The spectacle is the reign of vision, and vision is exteriority – that is, self-dispossession. The
malady of spectating man can be summed up in a brief formula: ‘the more he contemplates,
the less he lives’ [...] The ‘contemplation’ denounced by Debord is contemplation of the
appearance separated from its truth; it is the spectacle of the suffering produced by that
separation: ‘Separation is the alpha and omega of the spectacle’. ” (The Emancipated
Spectator 10)
For Gumbrecht, Presence refers to a spatial relationship to the world and its objects.
2
The Wooster Group, The Forced Entertainment along with visual artists such as Dan
Graham and Cindy Sherman, have influenced my conception of exploring presence
through performance. My focus through this project was on the performers, the
characters they are playing and its perception by their viewers (audience). My attempt
was to make these three, performer - character - viewer, closer to the time of the
performance. Where the performer and the viewer are physically present at this time, the
character is the one that is missing as it belongs to the time of the play. In Monitoring [A
Doll’s House] my attempt was to push the character towards the time of the performance
and play with its presence and absence. And as far as the characters could be
embodied by the performers and would be perceived by the viewers, both actors and the
audience became part of this research of transforming between these two phases.
Monitoring [A Doll’s House] as defined in the context of my research on presence in
theater performances, investigated the play between presence and absence. Using
Gilbert Simmondon’s idea of individuation5 and milieu6; and Deleuze’s original and
simulacra7 as my tools, I explored the spatio-temporal relation between the positive
image of the performance (the presence, the individual and the original) and its negative
image (the absence, the milieu and the simulacra).
5
6
7
“The living being is also the being that results from an initial individuation and amplifies this
individuation. In the living being, individuation is brought about by the individual itself, and is
not simply a functioning object that results from an individuation previously accomplished. […]
The living individual is a system of individuation, an individuatinq system and also a system
that individuates itself.” (The Genesis of the Individual 305)
“A milieu is what the fly inhabits, an indeterminable but limited space highlighted through
significant elements or qualities- cues to prey, rivals, love objects, and so on.”(Chaos,
Territory and art 46)
Brian Massumi defines Simulacrum, as it is “a copy of a copy whose relation to the model has
become so attenuated that it can no longer properly be said to be a copy. It stands on its own
as a copy without a model.” And according to Deleuze he mentions that “the simulacrum is
less a copy twice removed than a phenomenon of a different nature altogether: it undermines
the very distinction between copy and model.” (Realer than Real)
3
Figure 2. The diagrams of the positive and negative image of the performance
For the purpose of my research and this paper, I have called the spatio-temporal relation
between these two aspects: distance, which is what I have been exploring in depth in my
final thesis project. Accordingly, I have employed methodologies in order to explore this
relationship: the distance between being the performers and becoming the characters as
well as the audience and the performers.
1.2.1.
Distance in Acting: Performing the Stars
Presence in theatre has mostly been defined as the presence of the actors in the
performance8. According to Peggy Phelan, there is a division that happens between two
states of being: being the performer and being the character9, (or perhaps even more
accurately becoming the character). Focusing on Simmondon’s idea of individuation and
8
9
Elizabeth LeCompte, the artistic director of The Wooster Group, has noted that:
“’Presence’ is something that I think is…always in conversation with the formal pattern. The
formal pattern will tend to allow the performer to get lulled into feeling safe…the constant
battle for me as a director is to find ways that an actor can be always present, always alive,
always thinking this is the first and last moment that she’s there-doing this thing.” (Performing
Presence 239)
According to Peggy Phelan “Since Stanslavski, when actors are observed carefully and
perform well, they are said to have ‘presence’. The actor achieves ‘presence’ through
performing as if another” (Unmarked: the Politics of Performance 17). This argument is quite
consistent with how Phelan divides the figure of a performer from the figure of the character
he or she enacts.
4
how an individual is shaped within a milieu that surrounds it, I have tried to explore how
the audience might perceive the character’s creation on stage and its existence within
the space between being and becoming, between the individual and the milieu, between
what it is and what it is not (presence and absence). My aim was to explore the distance
between what might be perceived as being the performer and/or becoming the character
and to see how the presence of the fictional individuals (characters) might be liminal in
the audience’s view and seems to occur somewhere between these two zones.
Simmondon argues that there is no individual in advance. The individual has to
be produced or come into being within an ongoing process of becoming. So the
individual is filled with the potentials of further individuations, as it is not final. On the
other hand, the milieu can be “the environment, the ecological niche or a territory”10 that
encompasses the individual. It is the space that surrounds the living being. It is the
negative image that becomes visible through each process of individuation. Following
Simmondon’s argument in Monitoring [A Doll’s House], we accepted the fictional
character as individuals and attempted to research and constructed the milieu of the
character in order to see how a performer could individuate her character. Our
exploration of the milieu of the character included strategies such as using video clips of
movies and dance performances as source materials fed to the performers11. The
performers themselves chose various scenes of film stars, TV stars, dancers or video art
performers in order to copy their gestures. The sources were based on actors’ interest in
certain stars or performers, no matter if the star was female or male. The goal for the
actors was not just representing the stars but (as I was using this phrase during the
rehearsals) to eat the source actors, own them, embody them, translate them to their
characters’ gestural needs, mix them together and create something new, something
original out of all the copies! By doing so, they created a new character, a simulacrum,
which no longer belonged to their source models.
10
11
Grosz, E. A. Chaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth. New York:
Columbia UP, 2008. Print.
This is mainly the discovery of The Wooster Group that I had become familiar after a month
long of residency at the Performing Garage, although our approach in using the source
materials were quiet different from theirs.
5
Figure 3. Gena Roalands in Woman
Under the Influence as
Natalie Schneck’s Source for
the character Nora
Figure 4. Video Documentation Still,
Monitoring [A Doll’s House],
Oct. 21st 2012
For me the milieu of Ibsen’s characters such as Nora could be the space that
surrounds our expectations of who Nora is. We have tried to use any possibility from the
sources to create the character’s habitual gestures. Out of any particular reason, the
performers of Monitoring [A Doll’s House] happened to sit down, walk around, yawn or
do anything random as they had been copying their source stars from the screens
around them. Then those particular gestures happened to be superimposed on the
words of their characters uttering them.
The performers were functioning as live translators. They were translating those
movements constantly as they were watching them. Our aim was to translate the
gestural movements of the source material to the immediate gestural needs of their
characters. For example, there was a moment that Victoria Lyons’s source star, Irene
Jacob, was blowing bubble gum, which she translated immediately to yawning. The point
was that they did not have much time to process the translation with their mind but what
that had to work with their body. In my view, this process of constant translation within
the immediacy of the scene encourages their presence. They could not memorize (or in
other words block) their characters’ gestures as they had been occupied by copying so
many movements. So, they had to rely on the now, the present moment of the
performance as everything was happening as the first time. Like sports players, they had
6
been trained for doing techniques, but when the game starts it is pretty unpredictable
and new.
Following the ideas of Michael Kirby12 and Hans Thies Lehmann,13 I was
exploring creating characters that were mediated through the performer’s becoming the
character and the audience’ reception of that. The space between the performers and
the audience was where the characters appear and disappear. They were not created in
advance but constantly shaped within a process of becoming.
1.2.2.
Distance in Space: Glass Walls
My first attempt to create this distance was making a set for the performance out
of glass walls that affected the distance between the audience and the performers and
how the performance would be perceived. My goal was to create a space that
reproduced itself at the moment of the performance. I wanted to create multiple Noras,
Helmers, Christines and Krogstads as actual and virtual and to explore the distance
between their various appearances. Also I wanted to present the performance as an art
object, put in the space and allow the audience to observe it from every corner and
angle. Using the glass walls and surrounding the performers and the audience between
them, was my tool to create such an environment. The inspiration for the set design of
this piece was largely influenced by Christopher Frank’s novel Deadly (Mortelle) (that
reflects a society whose citizens are living in houses made of glass walls and are
constantly under the surveillance camera.) In Monitoring [A Doll’s House] I made four
moveable platforms, each containing five glass walls that had been defined the space
between performers and the audience.
12
13
Kirby, Michael. "4 On Acting and Not-Acting." Acting (re)considered: Theories and Practices.
London: Routledge, 1995. N. pag. Print.
Hens Thies Lehmann suggests that the actor of Post-dramatic Theatre is often no longer the
actor of a role but a performer offering his or her ‘presence’ on stage for contemplation.
(Postdramatic Theatre 135)
7
Figure 5. Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Video Documentation Still, Oct. 21st 2012
By separating the audience from the performers and the performers or the
audience members from each other, these glass walls were not only exploring the actual
distance between them, but also they affected their virtual distance. They were aiming to
give the audience the freedom to be as close as they wanted to be to the performance,
without feeling unsafe (as the glass walls were between them.) The audience could be in
the middle of the performance, only one step away from a performer and watch the
whole act through a glass wall. Being so close to the performers and watching them is
the freedom that usually belongs to the audience of visual arts, when they are looking at
an object. I was interested in creating a space where the audience of Monitoring [A
Doll’s House] could have the freedom to look at the piece as an object and adjust their
distance and angles, as they wished. What complicates this is the potential gaze of the
performers looking at the audience. It is in that potential moment that the agreement of
the time of the play might break to the time of the performance. The power dynamic
changes in that moment and the audience may feel the boundary is broken, and when
there is no boundary, there might be no safety. The feeling could be analogous to finding
a stranger looking through the windows of your home. I wanted to see if the actors could
be seen as objects to balance this gaze and to see if I could create an environment
8
where the audience and performers, and their gaze, were close to each other, but still
far.
Moreover, these glass walls created multiple views for the viewers. The audience
could not only observe the actual actors, but they also had multiple views (if not
thousands!) of their virtual reflected images. These virtual images had not been
produced before as it was happening at the time of the performance (within the moment
of now) and was disappearing as the performance moved on. They had been present
and absent at the same time. They were somewhere between the actual performance
and the gaze of their viewers and their existence had been in direct relationship with the
distance of the audience to the glass. Above that, they had emphasized the distance
between many Noras, Helmers, Krogstads and Christines that had been performed.
They had been produced smaller and larger images of the characters, closer and further
to the audience and the actual ones. They were superimposing the multiple virtual
images on themselves and on the actual ones. I had no control on this function: of my
virtual actors, of those other performances and other performers that had been
appearing and disappearing. As a result they had produced multi narrative performances
depending on the audience’ experience of watching the piece.
Figure 6. Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Video Documentation Still, Oct. 21st 2012
9
In some way the project is not so much about Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, but the
ongoing appearance of the play. The event occurs between the actual performance and
its reflected and multi viewed images. It happened between the actions that were getting
enacted and their reflected appearance.
1.3. Privacy: The Distance of the Gaze!
Fascinated by the unseen lives of people within their interiors, I chose Ibsen’s A
Doll’s House to create a performance located within inside interiors. The difference
between the life one leads outside, in public, and the life one leads inside, where one
hides oneself and does not share that life with the public, has always been very striking
to me. Walls create a distance within the public realm and separate the lives of
individuals from the gaze of the others. On the other hand, windows open the view to the
outside world and invite the others’ gaze inside. Paul Virilio defines windows as doors,
actual windows, TV (what he calls the third window) and Internet. Without these windows
he suggests there are no interiors.14 Through these windows one looks at the world
outside. As soon as one of these windows would be open, the information would be
exchanged and the border between the private and public would be blurred. We imagine
we can watch without being watched, but are we really safe from being watched? By
constantly absorbing the models/information/data from external sources, one’s privacy
can be influenced by the public world. This can move to an extreme that even one’s
identity could be affected and shaped by what one is constantly watching from the
outside world. According to Brian Massumi “We do not act, but neither do we merely
receive. We absorb through our open eyes and mouths. We neutralize the play of
energized images in the mass entropy of the silent majority.”15
Monitoring [A Doll’s House]’s live installation was an attempt between the public
and the private place. By exploring the distance between the performers and their
viewers, I wanted to examine how actors would perform inside their private space for a
14
“The Third Window: An Interview with Paul Virilio.” Global Television. Cambridge, MA:MIT
Press, 1988. 185-197.
10
gaze that was kilometers from them and how this distance might affect the audience
view. Seven actors were online on Skype from 12am until 5pm on Oct. 20th and 21st;
whether performing Ibsen’s characters or simply doing their everyday life activities (such
as sleeping, cooking, watching TV etc). The viewers at the theatre were watching the
actors’ private space and their performance: being themselves and becoming the
characters. There was a single bed for the audience, surrounded by seven laptops,
representing the actors. There was no light other than the light of the laptops and two
projectors facing the floor, projecting the pre-recorded images of everyday lives of
people within their interiors. This configuration shifted the public space to an intimate
private one where the viewers were exposed to the private worlds of others that that
were revealed to the world. Walls of their private interiors had been removed and
replaced by the windows of Skype. The space between the audience and the performers
was at its maximum level and the gaze of the audience was mediated through the lens
of the laptops’ cameras. The actors were performing for the camera of their laptop
without being able to know who is watching them, as they had a very limited view of the
theatre.
Figure 7, Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Video Documentation Still, Oct. 20th 2012
15
"Realer than Real: The Simulacrum According to Deleuze and Guattari." Realer than Real:
The Simulacrum According to Deleuze and Guattari. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.
11
Figure 8. Monitoring [A Doll’s House]-Installation, Skype Snapshots, Oct. 20th
Monitoring [A Doll’s House]’s live installation was also questioning presence and
its relation to their distance with their viewers. The actors had no physical entity at the
place of the installation, but they were offering the presence of their images. Their virtual
presence had even been reproduced and multiplied by the glass walls that were
surrounding the laptops. The actors were not there, at the theatre, at the time of the
installation; however their multiple live images were there, suggesting their presence.
12
References
Frank, Christopher. Mortelle. Paris: Editions Du Seuil, 1967. Print.
Giannachi, Gabriella, and Nick Kaye. Performing Presence: Between the Live and the
Simulated. Manchester, UK: Manchester UP, 2011. Print.
Grosz, E. A. Chaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth. New York:
Columbia UP, 2008. Print.
Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. Production of Presence: What Meaning Cannot Convey.
Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2004. Print.
Kirby, Michael. "4 On Acting and Not-Acting." Acting (re)considered: Theories and
Practices. London: Routledge, 1995. N. pag. Print.
Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramatic Theatre. London: Routledge, 2006. Print.
Phelan, Peggy. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. London: Routledge, 1993. Print.
Power, Cormac. Presence in Play: A Critique of Theories of Presence in the Theatre.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008. Print.
Rancière, Jacques, and Gregory Elliott. The Emancipated Spectator. London: Verso,
2009. Print.
Massumi, Brian. "Realer than Real: The Simulacrum According to Deleuze and
Guattari." Realer than Real: The Simulacrum According to Deleuze and Guattari.
N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Dec. 2012.
Simmondon, Gilbert. “The Position of the Problem of Ontogenesis” previously appeared
as “The Genesis of the Individual” (trans. Mark Cohen and Sanford Kwinter) in:
Crary, Jonathan and Sanford Kwinter, eds. Incorporations. New York: Zone,
1992. 296-319.
Schneider, Cynthia, and Brian Wallis, eds. “The Third Window: An Interview with Paul
Virilio.” Global Television. Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1988. 185-197.Print.
13
Appendices
14
Appendix A.
The liminality of the presence of the performers:
A research on character’s Individuation
Presence is a wide area of research in theatre. It is a fundamental aspect of a
performance and in the theory and practice of theatre, “articulations of presence
invariably hinge on the relationship between the live and mediated, on notions of
immediacy, authenticity and originality, and the relationship between performer and
witness” (Giannachi and Kaye 1). Mostly, the focus of much of theatrical discourse has
been on the nature of the actor’s presence, particularly within the fields of avant-garde
and postmodern performances. Many theatre theorists and practitioners such as Hans
Thies Lehmann in Postdramatic Theatre; Gabriella Giannachi and Nick Kaye in
Performing Presence; Peggy Phelan in Unmarked: The Politics of Performance; and
Laura Cull, Mathew Goulish, Phillip Zarrilli, Tim Etchells as well as others from The
Presence Project conference1 have touched on the presence of the performer as the
most vital aspect of the presence of a theatre performance. According to Giannachi and
Kaye in all modes of performance, the concept of presence has not much to do with
regards to the spectator, but rather it is mostly limited to the presence of the performers
and the relationship they create with their character and the dynamics they adopt to (re)
present their character to the audience. Peggy Phelan argues, “Since Stanslavski, when
actors are observed carefully and perform well, they are said to have presence. The
actor achieves presence through performing as if another” (qtd. in Giannachi and Kaye
8). What Giannachi and Kaye take this to mean is that the figure of a performer becomes
separate from the figure of the character he or she enacts. This reading of presence on
1
The focus of ‘The Presence Project’, from October 2005 to June 2009, was ‘presence’ in
performance. Happening mostly in England and the United States, and managed by Gabriella
Giannachi (Exeter UK), Mick Kaye (Exeter UK), Mel Slater (University College London) and
Michael Shanks (Stanford USA), the project included conferences, workshops, researche and
eventually published articles and papers. They were tracking six artistic and scientific
engagements with ‘presence’ in collaboration with Blast Theory; The Builders Association;
Gary Hill; Lynn Hershman Leeson; Tony Oursler and Paul Sermon. They also held some
research-based performance workshops by contemporary theatre practitioners such as Tim
Etchells; Phillip Zarrilli; Fiona Templeton; Bella Merlin; Vayu Naidu and Julian Maynard
Smith.
15
stage suggests that the ‘dramatic action’ is created, to a significant extent, from the
relationship between the ‘I am’ and what is ‘in front of’ or ‘before’.
‘Being present’ signifies a state, or condition, both in time and in space. It
indicates ‘now’ but also ‘in the previous moment’. Indeed, although
presence is ‘in front of I am’, and so close, it is also what is yet to come,
that is far. In other words, presence relentlessly ties the ‘I am’ with its past
and future, and that forces ‘I am’ to confront itself with what is ‘other’. In
other words, presence is what appears before or in front of the ‘I’. Both
temporally and spatially speaking, being present implies a relational
network that constantly binds us to ‘before’ and ‘after’, moments that don’t
exist at the moment of ‘now’. (Giannachi and Kaye 5)
What just happened ‘in the previous moment’ and the ‘I’ that is ‘in front of I am’
are both absent at the moment of ‘I am’. As Philip Zarrilli says in The Metaphysical
Studio, presence can be characterized as the lack of it as it implies in the other: the
absence (158). It could be said, presence in the theatre is physicality in the present that
at the same time is grounded in a form of absence. It is something that has unfolded, is
read against what has been seen, and presently observed in expectation as to what will
be seen. Presence brings about an expectation, an anticipation, of what will be unfolded
later. In other words, not only does the notion of presence in performance imply an
absence, but that absence itself is the possibility of future movement. So paradoxically,
presence is based not only in the present, but also in our expectation of the future. Hans
Thies Lehmann explains:
Presence can be illustrated by the experience of being startled when we
suddenly realize we are missing something or cannot remember
something – we cannot say what – and this not-having or not-knowing
‘suddenly’ enters our consciousness as an experience of emptiness – a
signal we cannot interpret but that nevertheless affects us. The present,
which in this way is an experience that is not suspended or suspendable,
is the experience of a lack or of having missed something. This
experience of lack takes place at the seam of time. (143)
These arguments are quite consistent with the liminality of presence and how it is
not something final, yet it is always in constant transformation and becoming. While it
describes fundamental states of being and becoming, the term presence in theatre
performances can be in a flow between the state of the performer and the state of the
character. It suggests the liminality of the presence of the performers is between being
16
themselves and becoming the characters within the gaze of their audience. This
argument is quite consistent with Gilbert Simmondon’s idea of individuation, which is one
of the concepts that he uses to explore the individual’s becoming. Although the latter
reflects scientifically on the existence of living beings, I found his discourse very relevant
to avant-garde and postdramatic discourses surrounding the notion of character.
In this paper I will explore how the presence of the performer and her creation of
her character lies somewhere between these two states of being and becoming. I will
use Gilbert Simmondon’s argument on how an individual is getting shaped within a
milieu and the process of individuation, to explore the character’s creation on stage and
its existence within the transformation between being and becoming, between individual
and milieu, between its presence and absence. I will argue how this constant
transformation is a vital aspect of the nature of presence within character’s creation and
that is why Simmondon’s argument is useful to study in character’s process of becoming
in theatre performances. Later on I will argue how his transductive model within a metastable equilibrium is a suitable model for the performers and audience of a theatre
performance to embody or perceive the liminality of the presence of the characters.
For doing so I will start my paper with giving a definition of the notion of time in
regard to the presence and various time frames of theatre performances. Then I will
explain Simmondon’s terms such as becoming, individuation and milieu in order to use
them in a theatrical context. At the end I will finish my paper by elaborating on his
transductive model and the meta-stable equilibrium and the necessity of this model
within the context of theatre performances. I draw on the example of theatre practitioners
such as Tim Etchells, Elizabethe LeCompte and Phillip Zarrilli, as well as performance
theorists such as Hans Thies Lehmann as well as Gabriella Giannachi and Nick Kaye.
Mainly I will focus on postdramatic theatre tools suggested by Lehmann in order to
elaborate on the notion of presence in theater to support Simmondon’s arguments.
Presence is in direct relationship to now. According to the Oxford Dictionary now
is “the present point or moment of time, the time directly following on the present
moment” (OED). According to this definition, now requires a potential of constant
transformation. In this transformation one present moment is dying while another present
moment is being born. Lehmann suggests that the present “cannot be grasped
17
conceptually but only as a perpetual self-division of the now into ever new splinters of
‘just now’ and ‘in an instant’. It has more to do with death than with the often-evoked ‘life’
of theatre” (144). If theatre is representing a moment that is already passed, a moment
that is potentially dying and transforms to another moment, then how is it possible to
stage that presence? How can an actor be present on stage? Also how fully can her/his
presence be captured by the gaze of audience?
Theatre has two different time frames: the ‘historical time’ of the play
(represented in the drama and the time of drama), as well as the ‘performance time’
(Lehmann 157). Characters would be presented at the time of the play within the drama
and would be suggested by the performers through the performance at the time of the
performance. So inevitably the character’s creation is in flow between these two different
time frames. Considering the reliance of the now of the performance to the moment
before and after, the now of the performance could only be defined as the meeting point
between the time of the play and the time of the performance. While these two time
frames are distant and very separate, the presence of the theatre performances requires
the constant transformation of the time of the play to the time of the performance.
Lehmann proposes time distortion as a phenomenon in the aesthetics of postdramatic
theatre as a tool for the transformation of ‘historical time’ to the ‘performance time’. In his
view, time distortion establishes “the intention of utilizing the specificity of theatre as a
mode of presentation to turn time as such into an object of the aesthetic experience”
(156). Within this view, Lehmann encourages theatre artists to create their performances
as time-based objects or what he calls time-based images. Time-based images
transform time to an object, so the perceiving of the images will change the audience’s
perception. This, in effect, encourages the viewer to perceive not simply the temporality
of the represented, but also the temporal aspects of the image itself.
Durational and temporal aesthetics are Lehmann’s suggestions to create timebased images on stage. For some theatre companies, the notion of durational or
temporal aesthetics expands to the structure of the whole performance. Durational
performances that include repetitions are an example of that. Forced Entertainment is a
good example of a contemporary theatre company that staged many durational
performances. They have created performances such as 12 am: Awake & Looking Down
that happens over six and eleven hours, or Who Can Sing a Song to Unfrighten Me?
18
which lasts 24 hours, starting at midnight. Their audience was free to arrive, depart and
return at any point. In Who Can Sing a Song to Unfrighten Me? there was one night
where almost the entire audience went asleep except one person, and following their
lead the performers fell asleep as well during the performance (Etchells). Time, in these
kinds of performances, has a particular effect on how the performers embody the
characters and how the audience perceives those characters. Inevitably the duration,
say 24 hours, turns the performance into something that can be perceived as a timebased object. The performers and the audience therefore experience the now of the
performance within a longer, and compressed, time frame. This quality suggests
constant transformation of the time of the play to the time of the performance, which is a
strong element of the presence of the performance.
Repetition would be also a good example of time distortion being used in
performance. Pina Bausch is well known for using repetition in her choreography. Her
dancers keep repeating certain phrases over and over and over to the point of
exhaustion. Thus both the performers and the audience become trapped in time as the
repetitions take place. The performers create (and the audience perceives) time-based
images, where each repetition takes on its own existence, with its own unique set of
characteristics. Therefore time-based images would be seen as means to constantly
push the performance towards the now of the performance. According to Lehmann the
repetitive movements make the performance “meaningless and redundant, as a
seemingly unending, unsynthesizable, uncontrolled and uncontrollable course of events”
(156). They are no longer part of a scenic design or structure of the performance, but
something new and unrepeatable. The movements might have the same choreography,
but through repetition and constant transformation they create something different, new,
meaningless, and uncontrollable. Unrepeatability as Lehmann explains “become
experience of time in a form of art that no longer restricts itself to presenting the final
outcome of its secret creative process but instead valorizes the temporal process of
becoming a picture as a ‘theatrical’ process” (134). By each repetition, the performance
will born again, it might leave something behind and go forward, all the way to its death,
to be reborn again.
By suggesting time distortion, Lehmann is also emphasizing the notion of
becoming and its necessity within presence of theatre performances. Now of the
19
performance is constantly evolving to another moment and another and another, through
the constant process of becoming. Having this understanding of time in theatre
performances, performers’ presence can be defined within the same context. Their
presence would be under the influence of constant transformation between two different
time frames of a theatre performance within a process of becoming.
As mentioned before, Phelan divides the figure of a performer from the figure of
the character. The division that she is suggesting between the figure of the performer
and the embodied character happens between two states of being: being the performer
and being the character, or even more accurately becoming the character. Gilbert
Simmondon sees becoming more like a dimension of the being and not a framework of
its own in which the being exists. In his view, becoming is a mode of resolving an initial
incompatibility that was rife with potentials. He explains:
The opposition holding between the being and its becoming can only be
valid when it is seen in the context of a certain doctrine according to
which substance is the very model of being; but it is equally possible to
maintain that becoming exists as one of the dimensions of the being, that
it corresponds to a capacity beings possess of falling out of step with
themselves …, of resolving themselves by the very act of falling out of
step. (300-301)
This is a useful argument to elaborate on actors’ performing characters.
According to Simmondon we can change Phelan’s concept of ‘being the character’ to
‘becoming the character’, knowing that this becoming is already a dimension of being. A
performer needs to fall out of step to become the character. The character then is the
result of this process of transformation. This is what Simmondon calls individuation as he
is explaining the process of an individual’s becoming. In order to elaborate on
character’s becoming in a theatre performance, first I need to elaborate some terms that
Simmondon is using: individual, individuation and milieu as well as his argument on
being and becoming.
Simmondon argues that there is no individual in advance. The individual has to
be produced or come into being within an ongoing process of becoming. So the
individual is filled with the potentials of further individuations, and is therefore not final.
Individuation is also never a step or a stage of its own (314). According to Simmondon
20
“the living being is […] the being that results from an initial individuation and amplifies
this individuation. In the living being, individuation is brought about by the individual
itself, and is not simply a functioning object that results from an individuation previously
accomplished” (305). The individual and individuation are tied together. One implies the
other, as being an individual is the outcome of constant becoming. So the living
individual “is a system of individuation, an individuating system and also a system that
individuates itself” (305).
On the other hand, this system is also in relationship with the environment that
occupies the living being. In other words, individuation not only reveals the individual, but
along with it the individual-milieu dyad. The milieu can be “the environment, the
ecological niche or a territory” (Grosz 46) that encompasses the individual. It is the
space that surrounds the living being. “In this way, the individual possesses only a
relative existence in two senses: because it does not represent the totality of the being,
and because it is merely the result of a phase in the being's development during which it
existed neither in the form of an individual nor as the principle of individuation.”
(Simmondon 300)
If we accept that a character is a fictional individual, then Simmondon’s argument
of an individual’s individuating can shed light on the presence of the performers and how
they could individuate their character. Within this view, the character is being
individuated constantly, as it is not something final or in advance. Its being is tied to its
process of becoming. Following this, the character does not belong to the ‘historical time’
or time of the play, but it is always under the process of individuation towards the time of
the performance. This means the performer who is suggesting the character, and the
viewer who is observing the character for contemplation, at the time of the performance,
are confronting something that is always in emergence but not final, fixed or even
arrived. In this view a character would be mediated between being and becoming. The
character’s becoming (through the audience’ gaze or the performer’s embodiment) is
always under falling out of step with him/herself. In other words, the character rejects its
individuation constantly and falls out of itself. Falling out of step suggests the negative
image of the character, the milieu.
21
Milieu is the negative image that according to Simmondon becomes visible
through each process of individuation. It breathes around the living being. “A milieu is
what the fly inhabits, an indeterminable but limited space highlighted through significant
elements or qualities- cues to prey, rivals, love objects, and so on” (Grosz 46). The
milieu is in constant relationship with the individual that is being shaped continuously
through the process of individuation. Milieu is the environment that is re-shaping itself
and is affected by the process of individuation. It is the immediate circumstance of the
individual’s individuation. In theatre performances, it can be defined as absence, an
absence that already exists within the presence of the performance or character. Philip
Zarrilli mentions:
I view this relationship [between the performer and its character] as a
constantly dialectical state of creative possibility. I will argue that only if
the absent is constantly present (‘at-hand’) to the performer might
presence emerge as a performative disposition—a place of possibility and
readiness…Is it, perhaps, in this spatio-temporal realm between presence
and absence, between ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’—this liminal realm
between—that we might begin to explore the actor’s work, between, on
the edge of absence? (Zarrilli, Toward a Dispositional State of
Possibility—with a Touch of ‘madness’)
Within Zarrilli’s view, the actor needs to be in between, and on the threshold of,
the positive and the negative image of her character. She is in a constant flow between
what a character might be and might not be. It is within this liminal realm that the
character takes shape. This liminal realm between presence and absence that, Zarrilli
would argue, amplifies the presence of the actor (and the character she is performing),
also resonates with Simmondon’s argument of the individual and milieu. The character is
the imaginary individual whom the actor is willing to embody and the viewer wishes to
perceive. The character then is being individuated constantly in order to be more present
as it is being pushed towards the milieu. The character takes shape and disappears
within the gaze of the audience in between these two zones: the individual and the
milieu. It happens when it passes out of the zones. This view suggests that an actor
might embody, or the audience perceive, the character as it always is, that is,
continuously moving in and out of the milieu. The milieu of the character suggests all the
possibilities that deviate from our expectations of what a character might be. It is the
negative image of the character, and the outer zone, which generates the possibilities of
22
what the character might be. In this sense, the milieu of the character is as essential as
its positive image. In other words, it is impossible to avoid the existence of the milieu, the
absence, and the negative image of the character to perceive its individuality, its
presence and its positive image. The character in this view is in constant transformation
between its presence and absence. Therefore, both the performers and the audience
experience both the negative image and the positive image of the performance, its
presence along with its absence.
Various theatre practitioners have different approaches to lead their performers
towards presence. Someone like Zarrilli invests deeply in eastern practices such as
martial arts and uses physical training so that the actors can find their own presence
within their absence. On the other hand, theatre companies such as The Wooster Group
and Forced Entertainment have examined different approaches in performing to stage
more presence. As Kermit Dunkelberg having studied The Wooster Group’s practical
works, the new directors “often utilized flatter space and flatter, more distanced acting
(even to the point of non-acting). They embraced technology. They explored the
psychological subjectivity of the director and/or performers as subject matter, as in
LeCompte and Spalding Gray's trilogy-with-epilogue Three Places in Rhode Island” (44).
Their presence happens in the negotiation between their characters and themselves.
Elizabeth LeCompte, the artistic director of The Wooster Group, has noted that:
Presence is something that I think is…always in conversation with the
formal pattern. The formal pattern will tend to allow the performer to get
lulled into feeling safe…the constant battle for me as a director is to find
ways that an actor can be always present, always alive, always thinking
this is the first and last moment that she’s there-doing this thing.
(Gianachi and Kaye 239)
Both LeCompt and Zarrilli are good examples of practitioners who attempt to
push the performers towards absence, by occupying them physically and/or mentally.
The performers of The Wooster Group, for example, are occupied during the time of the
performance by being required to follow a variety of instructions. One of these is their
continuous engagement with their source materials (TV monitors and in-ear sound
tracks which provide real-time guidelines) so that they cannot hold on to any
preconceived notions about their character. As a result, the characters they are creating
23
are constantly transforming into something else, something that might or might not be
the character. In other words, their performances become more distant. One might even
call them ‘non- acting’.
The terms ‘distanced acting or non-acting’ by themselves imply the idea of
absence. There are yet another approach that theatre theorists and practitioners have
been using to push performers towards presence. Performers move from ‘acting’ to
‘performing’, or as Lehmann elaborates on Michael Kirby’s ideas, from ‘acting’ to ‘nonacting’:
Michael Kirby has coined the terms ‘acting’ and ‘non-acting’ for this,
including an interesting differentiation of the transitions from ‘full matrixed
acting’ to ‘non-matrixed acting’… ‘Non-acting’, the one extreme, refers to
a presence in which the performer does nothing to amplify the information
arising from his/her presence (for example, the stage servants in
Japanese theatre). Not being integrated into a play context, the performer
is here in a state of ‘non-matrixed acting’. (135)
Hens Thies Lehmann suggests that the actor of postdramatic theatre is often no longer
the actor of a role but a performer offering his or her presence on stage for
contemplation.(135) For Postdramatic Theatre, ‘liveness’ comes to the fore, highlighting
the provocative presence of the human being rather than the embodiment of a figure. In
other words, the performer forces the presence and the distance between being herself
and becoming her character. Forced Entertainment and Living Theatre are good
examples of theatre companies that have their performers emphasize on this distance.
For instance, Forced Entertainment’s signature is that the name of the characters are
written on boards or placards and are being carried by the performers while they are
performing that character. This is a very obvious sign to emphasize this distance. They
are also going further with this distance up to the point that even actors will write the
emotions or situations of their characters on the boards they are carrying in the space.
An example would be signs such as ‘liar’, ‘alive’, ‘dead’, ‘pleasure’ or even longer
phrases such as ‘man who never comes out of his room’ or ‘two modern white girls’.
One thing that is common to all these various approaches is the awareness of
the performers of the transductive characteristic of performing presence. They are not
staying in a stable state as they are constantly negotiating between what might be the
24
character and what might not be, between acting and non-acting, between being
themselves and being/becoming the characters. They reveal this process of
transformation to their audience and invite them to perceive their process of suggesting
their characters at the time of the performance. This invitation requires the audience to
contemplate what character might be at the now of the performance. As a result, the
audience is also required to capture or perceive what might be the character, to lose it
constantly to another image, concept or perception. What presence requires then from
both performers and audience, has a transductive characteristic. The presence of the
characters at the time of the performance requires the presence of the performers and
the audience and their constant contemplation of being and becoming. The performer or
the viewer of postdramatic theatre (or any avant-garde or experimental one at that)
needs to be aware of this transductive aspect of character’s creation. Becoming
transductive is what Simmondon sees as one of the primary characteristics of a living
being.
[A] being has a transductive unity, that is, it can pass out of phase with
itself, it can- in any area- break its own bounds in relation to its center.
What one assumes to be a relation or a duality if principles is in fact the
unfolding of the being, which is more than a unity and more than an
identity; becoming is a dimension of the being, not something that
happens to it following a succession of events that affect a being already
and originally given and substantial. Individuation must be grasped as the
becoming of the being and not as a model of the being, which would
exhaust its signification. The individuated being is neither the whole being
nor the primary being. (311)
This constant transformation happens within the interiority of individuals as
individuation occurs within them. So Simmondon argues that the living individual is a
system within a system that “is its own contemporary with regard to each one of its
elements; … [and] can be considered to be a node of information that is being
transmitted inside itself-it is … containing within itself mediation between two different
orders” (305). So the living being contains an interior system of individuation for its
constant becoming. However, it not only individuates itself constantly within its interiors,
it is also being individuated by the exteriority that surrounds it: the milieu. So, the
transductive aspect of the individual does not only occur inside itself but also between
the individual and the milieu. The individual in this view is the result of constant
25
transformation within its interiority and exteriority. Its becoming is under the direct and
indirect effect of the individuation and milieu. It is mediated between all these aspects.
This transductive model (if one can use the word ‘model’) constantly suggests
the becoming of the living being. It is a perfect model for pushing various aspects of a
performance towards the time of the performance, towards the now of the performance:
towards its presence. This model has some similarities with what Deleuze and Guattari
suggest with their rhizomatic structure (A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia 3-26). Both models function as a machine. With the transductive model,
the milieu and the process of individuation, affecting the individual’s becoming, they
encompass each other and one’s transformation effects the whole unity. Its transductive
unity is not stable, yet it is in constant movement. This is also the significance of the
rhizomatic model as it works like a machine that can continually manufacture
possibilities. The rhizomatic model questions the hierarchical model (or according to
Deleuze and Guattari the tree model) (A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia 3-26). It branches out its rhizomes everywhere and reproduces them and
by doing so always suggests a new becoming. The transductive model also constantly
creates a new individual. It does not reproduce thousands of individuals, however if one
were to use this model in theatre, the appearance of the characters, being produced
through individuation, might remain within the memory of the body of the performers or
as Mathew Goulish argues within the mind of the audience who perceive them.
Memory exists in each perception, because each moment, however
small, has duration. A change transpires in each moment. Memory in a
sense coheres a moment as a moment, as we might remember its start a
certain way at its end, in order to make it one thing, a moment. We
perceive duration through change; we perceive change through
movement. A moment, then, is moving. Because it is moving, it is always
becoming. It will never become what it is becoming. (Goulish)
In such a case the viewer is confronted with thousands of possibilities (and thousands of
characters) being produced at the time of the performance. These perceptions remain
with the viewer, or the performer, without a hierarchical order, and one hopes that the
notion of what a character is would be mediated within these thousands of becomings.
26
To sum up, it is important to address the difficulties that mediated or liminal
characters might bring about in a theatre performance. Characters being mediated can
be problematic for the performers who embody them and to the audience who perceive
them, since not only would performers not be able to hold on to a stable equilibrium and
embody a character that is final and completed, but the audience likewise would be
deprived of the experience of observing a completed character. The presence requires
the performers to constantly suggest the characters and the audience to perceive them
in a meta-stable equilibrium. The character’s embodiment and perception is always in
transformation between its positive and negative image and ties the ‘I am’ to the one
before or after, and pushes the now of the performance forward. This meta-stability is
not what has been common in conventional terms and expectations of a character in
theatre performances. Both performers and audience are used to creating and observing
characters in a stable equilibrium where for example there is no such a thing as
becoming Hamlet. What the performers at a stable equilibrium are offering is being
Hamlet. Simmondon explains the relationship between the stable equilibrium and the
idea of becoming:
Stable equilibrium excludes the idea of becoming because it corresponds
to the lowest level of potential energy possible; it is the sort of equilibrium
that is attained in a system when all the possible transformations have
been achieved and no other force remains to enact any further changes.
With all the potentials actualized, and the system having reached its
lowest energy level, it can no longer go through any more
transformations. (301-302)
The stable equilibrium is where the process of rehearsals has been finished and
there is no more change or discovery for the performers. Performers are embodying the
characters who will not be transformed at the time of the performance. As a result, the
audience of a stable equilibrium also perceives characters as the final product,
something concluded and stable. According to Simmondon in order to define metastability, “it is necessary to introduce the notion of the potential energy residing in a given
system” (301-302). The potential energy that exists in the meta-stable equilibrium can be
used to force the performance towards presence. It is within a meta-stable equilibrium
that characters can be under constant individuation and transformation. And as far as
transformation is the vital aspect of presence, the meta-stable equilibrium might be the
27
only equilibrium that would serve performances that suggest presence (such as
postdramatic theatre performances). The concept of metastable equilibrium has the
potential to serve performances that foreground presence.
Presence admits temporal and spatial complexities into the effects and acts of
performers to their audience. It is in the performativity of presence, too, that the intersubjective and social implications of ‘being present’ to and before the other are
foregrounded (Gianachi and Kaye 241). Such performative engagements with presence
also bridge the gap between absence and presence; between a character and a
performer; between the gaze(r) and the image seen. The works and investigations of
contemporary and mostly postdramatic theatre practitioners, such as The Wooster
Group, Forced Entertainment or Societas Raffaelo Sanzio unfold through varied
dynamics and processes, whereby the production and reception of presence are
performed over time, in operations between unobtainable moments of absence and
presence, between here and there, between now and the moment before and so in the
implication of the one in the other.
It can be helpful if we think of presence as a process of constant unfolding, of
revealing, and of changes and accumulations over time. It provides further connections
between these companies’ works and processes in their address to the performance of
presence. Presence remains always in advance or before itself: always in emergence. It
arises in processes of constant transformation and in the intrusion of one place, position
and realm on another: in overlapping between self and other; in uncanny separations of
and returns to a sense of where ‘I am’. Perhaps what we need in theatre is to emphasize
this emergence by highlighting the temporal and spatial distance between presence and
absence, between performer and character and between audience and performer.
28
Bibliography
Cull, Laura. "Laura Cull and Matthew Goulish, 'A Dialogue on Becoming'" The ‘presence’
Project. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.
<http://presence.stanford.edu:3455/collaboratory/1029>.
Dunkelberg, Kermit. "Confrontation, Simulation, Admiration (The Wooster Group's Poor
Theatre)." The Drama Review: TDR 187th ser. 49.3 (2005): 43-57. JSTORE.
Web. 11 Dec. 2011. <http://http://www.jstor.org/pss/4488656>.
Etchells, Tim. Certain Fragments Contemporary Performance and Forced
Entertainment. London: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Giannachi, Gabriella, and Nick Kaye. Performing ‘presence’: between the Live and the
Simulated. Manchester, UK: Manchester UP, 2011. Print.
Giannachi, Gabriella, Nick Kaye, Mel Slater, and Michael Shanks, eds. The Presence
Project: Home. The Presence Project: Home. N.p., 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2011.
<http://presence.stanford.edu/collaboratory/Home>.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1987. Print.
Simmondon, Gilbert. Trans. Jonathan Crary and Sanford Kwinter. “The Position of the
Problem of Ontogenesis” Previously Appeared as “The Genesis of the
Individual”. New York: Zone, 1992. 296-319. Web. 24 Nov. 2011.
<http://http://english.duke.edu/uploads/assets/Simondon%20Genesis%20of%20t
he%20Individual.PDF>.
Grosz, E. A. Chaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth. New York:
Columbia UP, 2008. Print.
Kirby, Michael. "4 On Acting and Not-Acting." Acting (re)considered: Theories and
Practices. London: Routledge, 1995. N. pag. Print.
Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramatic Theatre. London: Routledge, 2006. Print.
“Now” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University
Press. 30 April 2007 <http://dictionary.oed.com/>.
Phelan, Peggy. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. London: Routledge, 1993. Print.
“Presence” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University
Press. 30 April 2007 <http://dictionary.oed.com/>.
Zarrilli, Phillip. "The Metaphysical Studio." The Drama Review: TDR 174th ser. 46.2
(2002): 157-70. Project MUSE. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.
<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tdr/summary/v046/46.2zarrilli.html>.
29
Zarrilli, Phillip. "Toward a Dispositional State of Possibility—with a Touch of ‘madness'"
The ‘presence’ Project 10 May 2006. Stanford. Web.
<http://http://’presence’.stanford.edu:3455/collaboratory/506>.
30
Appendix B.
Script: Monitoring [A Doll’s House]
Based on Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House
Abridged, Modified and Supplemented by Steve Neufeld
Dramatis Personae
Torvald Helmer
Nora, his wife
Mrs. Linde
Nils Krogstad
(The action takes place in Helmer's house.)
31
ACT I
NORA walks through the front door, humming. She has a Christmas tree and some
parcels, which she sets down off to the side. She takes from her pocket a bag containing
macaroons and eats a couple. Then, she tiptoes across and listens at her husband’s
door.
HELMER:
(from his room) Is that you?
NORA:
(busy opening some of the parcels): Yes.
HELMER:
When did you get back?
NORA:
Just now. (Puts the bag of macaroons into her pocket and wipes her
mouth.) Come see what I bought.
HELMER:
(He opens the door and looks into the room, pen in hand.) Wasting
more money?
NORA:
Why not?
HELMER:
We can't be reckless.
NORA:
We can be a little reckless.
HELMER:
At the end of the first quarter, maybe.
NORA:
You could borrow ‘til then.
HELMER:
(Goes up to her and takes her playfully by the ear): Let’s say I did,
and you spent it in a week, and then on New Year’s Eve I had a heart
attack--
NORA:
Don’t talk like that.
HELMER:
Well?
NORA:
I wouldn’t care about how much money I owed.
HELMER:
What about the people who lent it?
NORA:
Why would I care about them?
HELMER:
There’s no peace in a home that depends on borrowing. We can hang
on like this for a few more months.
NORA:
If you want.
32
HELMER:
(Taking out his purse): Here. (Gives her some money) I know how
expensive Christmas can be.
NORA:
That’ll keep me going for a while.
HELMER:
It better.
NORA:
It will. But look what I bought for the kids. A new suit and a sword; a
horse and a trumpet; and a doll.
HELMER:
(grabbing a parcel): What’s this?
NORA:
(crying out): No! Not ‘til tonight.
HELMER:
Alright. But what about you?
NORA:
Me? Oh, I don't want anything.
HELMER:
You must want something.
NORA:
I really can't think of anything--
HELMER:
Come on--
NORA:
(playing with his coat buttons, and without raising her eyes to his). If
you really want, you could--
HELMER:
What?
NORA:
You could give me some money.
HELMER:
Nora--
NORA:
Please? I’ll wrap it in gold paper and hang it on the tree.
HELMER:
Maybe if you’d actually buy something for yourself. But you’ll spend it
all on household things. (Puts his arm round her waist.)
NORA:
I save what I can.
HELMER:
(laughing): Yes – which is nothing.
NORA:
(smiling): I have a lot of expenses.
HELMER:
You’re just like your father. Any money you get evaporates.
NORA:
I wish I was more like him.
HELMER:
Well I like you just the way you are. You look nervous.
33
NORA:
I do?
HELMER:
Look at me.
NORA looks at him.
HELMER:
(wagging his finger at her): Has someone been breaking a few rules
today?
NORA:
What do you mean?
HELMER:
A bite of candy, maybe?
NORA:
No.
HELMER:
Not even a cookie?
NORA:
No, Torvald, I promise--
HELMER:
I’m only joking.
NORA:
I wouldn’t--
HELMER:
I know, you promise-- (Going up to her.) Keep your secrets to
yourself. Remember last Christmas, when you hid yourself away
making all those decorations? It was the most boring three weeks of
my life.
NORA:
Not to me.
HELMER:
(smiling): Too bad nothing came of it.
NORA:
It’s not my fault the cat tore everything to shreds.
HELMER:
You had good intentions -- that's the main thing. But now we’re past
those times.
NORA:
Torvald, I’ve been thinking. When Christmas is over-(A bell rings in the hall. She tidies the room a little.)
HELMER:
I’m not here.
HELMER goes to his study.
NORA gets the door. It is MRS. LINDE.
MRS. LINDE:
Hello, Nora.
NORA:
[uncertain] Hello.
MRS. LINDE:
You don't recognise me.
34
NORA:
Christine?
MRS. LINDE:
Yes.
NORA:
You’ve changed.
MRS. LINDE:
It’s been nine, ten years—
NORA:
And suddenly you’re here.
MRS. LINDE:
I arrived on the ferry this morning.
NORA:
We’ll have so much fun. Can I take your coat? Sit down. (Helps her;
they sit.) Now you look like the Christine I remember -- a little thinner,
maybe.
MRS. LINDE:
And a lot older.
NORA:
Not much. Anyway, I shouldn’t sit here chatting away as if you — I’m
sorry.
MRS. LINDE:
What do you mean?
NORA:
You’re a widow now.
MRS. LINDE:
Three years ago.
NORA:
I meant to write.
MRS. LINDE:
I understand.
NORA:
Did he leave you anything?
MRS. LINDE:
No.
NORA:
Any children?
MRS. LINDE:
No.
NORA:
Nothing?
MRS. LINDE:
Not even grief.
NORA:
That can’t be true.
MRS. LINDE:
(smiles sadly and strokes her hair): Yes it can.
NORA:
I want to hear about everything.
MRS. LINDE:
No. No, I’d rather hear about you.
35
NORA:
I shouldn’t be selfish today; I should think about you. But there is one
thing. We just had an amazing stroke of luck.
MRS. LINDE:
What happened?
NORA:
My husband has been made manager of the Bank!
MRS. LINDE:
That is good luck!
NORA:
He starts in the New Year. It’ll be wonderful to have endless money
and nothing to worry about.
MRS. LINDE:
I think it’d be wonderful just to have what you need.
NORA:
No, not just what we need; an avalanche of money.
MRS. LINDE:
(smiling): You haven’t changed a bit.
NORA:
Actually, we’ve been very careful with our money. Up ‘til now. We’ve
both had to work.
MRS. LINDE:
You too?
NORA:
Needlework, crotchet -- things like that. (Dropping her voice.) And
other things. When we got married, Torvald decided he had to earn
more money. He worked himself sick. The doctors said he should go
somewhere warm for a while.
MRS. LINDE:
Didn’t you spend a whole year travelling?
NORA:
It saved Torvald's life. But it was expensive.
MRS. LINDE:
It’s nice to have enough money for emergencies.
NORA:
Oh, we got it from Dad.
MRS. LINDE:
I thought he died.
NORA:
And I couldn’t take care of him. I was expecting my first son any day
and I had Torvald to look after. I never saw him again. (Pause.)
NORA:
I’m going on and on about myself. (Sits on a stool near her, and rests
her arms on her knees.) You really weren’t sad when your husband
died? If you didn’t love him, why did you marry him?
MRS. LINDE:
My mother was bedridden and I had to raise my two younger brothers;
I didn’t see how I could say no.
NORA:
So he was rich?
36
MRS. LINDE:
He seemed comfortable enough. But when he died, there was nothing
left.
NORA:
Then what?--
MRS. LINDE:
The last three years have been one long work-day. But now it’s over.
My mother doesn’t need me anymore, and the boys have grown up.
NORA:
That must be a relief.
MRS. LINDE:
I only feel empty.
NORA:
You look worn out, Christine. You should get away somewhere and
relax.
MRS. LINDE:
I have no father to pay for my holidays.
NORA:
Don’t be angry.
MRS. LINDE:
(going up to her): I should be asking you not to be angry, Nora. When
you told me your good news -- I was more happy for myself than for
you.
NORA:
Are you hoping Torvald might give you a job?
MRS. LINDE:
That’s what I was thinking.
NORA:
Just leave it to me.
MRS. LINDE:
It’s kind of you Nora, especially since you’ve never had any real
problems.
NORA:
No one thinks I’ve ever had to worry about anything.
MRS. LINDE:
But you’ve just told me all your problems.
NORA:
Those were nothing.
MRS. LINDE:
What do you mean?
NORA:
Aren’t you proud of how hard you worked for your mother and
brothers?
MRS. LINDE:
I have a right to be.
NORA:
Well, I have something to be proud of, too.
NORA Pulls her down on the sofa beside her.
NORA:
Torvald never would have recovered without that trip.
37
MRS. LINDE:
Yes, but your father gave you the money.
NORA:
(smiling). That’s what everyone thinks, but Dad didn't give us a thing. I
found the money myself.
MRS. LINDE:
How? Did you win the lottery?
NORA:
How could I be proud of winning the lottery?
MRS. LINDE:
But a wife can’t borrow money.
NORA:
(tossing her head): Unless she has a little business sense.
MRS. LINDE:
I don't understand.
NORA:
When a woman is as attractive as I am--
MRS. LINDE:
Nora, tell me you haven’t done something stupid.
NORA:
Is it stupid to save your husband's life?
MRS. LINDE:
It is if you go behind his back and--
NORA:
I told him that I wanted to travel abroad like other young wives; I cried
and begged; I even hinted that he could take out a loan. That made
him really angry. He said it was his duty as my husband not to indulge
my “caprices” -- as he called them. Alright, I thought, you need to be
saved -- so I found a way to save him—
MRS. LINDE:
And your father never told Torvald that the money wasn’t from him?
NORA:
I was going to ask him not to say anything. But he was so sick-- And
then there was no need.
MRS. LINDE:
And you didn’t tell Torvald?
NORA:
He’d be devastated if he thought he owed me anything. It would ruin
our relationship.
MRS. LINDE:
You’re never going to tell him?
NORA:
(meditatively, and with a half-smile): Yes -- someday, maybe, when
I’m not as attractive as I am now.
MRS. LINDE:
How are you paying it back?
NORA:
Whenever Torvald gives me money for new dresses and things, I
never spend more than half of it; I buy the cheapest things. Luckily,
anything looks good on me, so Torvald’s never noticed. But it’s been
hard -- it is nice to wear beautiful clothes, isn't it?
38
MRS. LINDE:
It is.
NORA:
And last winter I got some copying to do; I locked myself up and wrote
until late at night. I was exhausted all the time; but still it was fun,
working and earning money. It was like being a man.
MRS. LINDE:
How much have you paid off?
NORA:
It’s hard to keep track. As much as I could. Sometimes I felt like I’d
never make it. (Smiles.) Then I’d imagine that a rich old man had
fallen in love with me--
MRS. LINDE:
Who?
NORA:
--that he’d died and left me everything.
MRS. LINDE:
Who is he?
NORA:
It was just something I imagined.
The Doorbell RINGS.
MRS. LINDE:
(rising): I should go.
NORA:
No, don't.
Nora answers the door. It is Krogastad. Mrs. Linde starts, composes
herself, and turns to the window.
NORA:
(takes a step towards him, and speaks in a strained, low voice): You?
KROGSTAD:
I need to talk to your husband.
NORA:
(still whispering): About what?
KROGSTAD:
He’s about to become the manager of the bank I work at.
NORA:
Then it’s not--
KROGSTAD:
No.
NORA:
He’s in his study.
Nora walks Krogstad to the door to the hall, and points him towards
the study.
MRS. LINDE:
Who was that?
NORA:
His name’s Krogstad.
39
MRS. LINDE:
Then it was him.
NORA:
You know him?
MRS. LINDE:
I did-- years ago. He used to be a lawyer’s clerk in my home town.
He’s changed.
NORA:
He was in a very unhappy marriage.
MRS. LINDE:
Is he single now?
NORA:
He is, with a lot of kids to take care of.
NORA takes out the bag of macaroons.
NORA:
If Torvald catches me eating these I have to listen to never-ending
speech about nutrition. (Puts a macaroon into Mrs. Linde’s mouth.
NORA eats a few and sighs with pleasure.)
NORA:
That’s it. Complete happiness.
MRS. LINDE:
Here he comes.
NORA:
(hiding the packet). Shh!
HELMER enters from the hall. NORA goes to meet him.
NORA:
Is he gone?
HELMER:
Just now.
NORA:
This is Christine; she came in this morning.
HELMER:
A school friend?
MRS. LINDE:
Yes.
NORA:
And she’s come all this way just to see you.
HELMER:
Oh?
MRS. LINDE:
Well--
NORA:
Christine is incredibly good at office work, and she wants to work for
an intelligent man who can teach her even more.
HELMER:
That’s very sensible.
40
NORA:
And when she found out you were the new manager of the bank she
came here right away. You’ll be able to find something for her, won't
you?
HELMER:
Do you have any other commitments that would take priority over the
bank?
MRS. LINDE:
No, none.
HELMER:
And you’ve had some experience with office work?
MRS. LINDE:
Quite a lot.
HELMER:
Then I’m sure I’ll find something--
NORA:
(clapping her hands): You see?
HELMER:
You’ve come at a lucky time, Mrs. Linde.
MRS. LINDE:
How can I thank you?
HELMER:
Don’t mention it. (Puts on his coat and heads for the door.) Excuse
me--
NORA:
Don't be long, Torvald.
HELMER:
Only an hour.
NORA:
Are you going too, Christine?
MRS. LINDE:
(putting on her cloak): I need to go and find a room.
HELMER:
Then we can walk together.
NORA:
(helping her): It’s so crowded here; otherwise we’d offer to--
MRS. LINDE:
Don’t be silly. Goodbye, Nora, and thanks again.
NORA:
Goodbye. We’ll see you tonight?
MRS. LINDE and HELMER go out together.
NORA begins to set up the Christmas tree.
The living room door opens to reveal KROGSTAD. He clears his
throat and Nora wheels around.
NORA:
Oh!
41
KROGSTAD:
The door was open.
NORA:
What do you want?
KROGSTAD:
A word with you.
NORA:
I can’t give you anything today.
KROGSTAD:
This is about something else. I saw your husband walking down the
street-
NORA:
Yes?
KROGSTAD:
With a woman.
NORA:
Well?
KROGSTAD:
Is her name Christine?
NORA:
It is.
KROGSTAD:
When did she get here?
NORA:
Today.
KROGSTAD:
She’s a good friend of yours, isn't she?
NORA:
I don't see--
KROGSTAD:
I knew her too, once.
NORA:
I know.
KROGSTAD:
Has she been given a job at the Bank?
NORA:
Yes. I arranged it.
KROGSTAD:
Of course you did.
NORA:
People in a position like yours, Mr. Krogstad, shouldn’t offend anyone
who-- who--
KROGSTAD:
Who has influence?
NORA:
Exactly.
KROGSTAD:
Mrs. Helmer, I came to ask if you would use your influence on my
behalf.
NORA:
What do you mean?
42
KROGSTAD:
Make sure that I keep my job at the Bank.
NORA:
Who wants to take it?
KROGSTAD:
Don’t bother pretending.
NORA:
But I’m--
KROGSTAD:
I would advise you to use your influence to prevent it.
NORA:
But, Mr. Krogstad, I have no influence.
KROGSTAD:
You just said--
NORA:
You think I have that kind of influence? Over my husband?
KROGSTAD:
I’ve known your husband since we were students. I’m relatively
confident that he has the same weaknesses other husbands have.
NORA:
I think you should leave.
KROGSTAD:
You’re a bold woman, Mrs. Helmer.
NORA:
I’m not afraid of you anymore.
KROGSTAD:
(controlling himself): Listen to me. I will fight for my little job as if it was
my life.
NORA:
I’m sure you will.
KROGSTAD:
It’s not about money. Years ago, I made a mistake.
NORA:
I heard something.
KROGSTAD:
After that, every door was closed to me. Lending money was my only
option. But now my sons are growing up, and for their sake I need to
win back some respect. This position at the bank was my first step up
the ladder – and now your husband is trying to kick me back into the
mud.
NORA:
I can’t help you.
KROGSTAD:
I can tell your husband what you owe.
NORA:
(impetuously): Do it, then. My husband will see what kind of a man
you are, and you’ll never keep your job.
KROGSTAD:
Either you have a very bad memory or you know very little about
business.
43
NORA:
What are you talking about?
KROGSTAD:
When your husband was sick, you came to me to borrow a lot of
money.
NORA:
I didn't know anyone else.
KROGSTAD:
I promised to get you that money--
NORA:
And you did.
KROGSTAD:
On certain conditions. I promised to get the money on the security of a
bond I drew up.
NORA:
Which I signed.
KROGSTAD:
But below your signature were a few lines naming your father as
security for the debt; those lines were to be signed by him.
NORA:
He did sign them.
KROGSTAD:
I left the date blank for your father to fill in when he signed. Do you
remember that?
NORA:
I think so--
KROGSTAD:
Then I gave you the bond to mail to your father. Is that right?
NORA:
Yes.
KROGSTAD:
And you must have mailed it right away, because five or six days later
you brought me the bond with your father's signature. And then I gave
you the money.
NORA:
Well, haven't I been making my payments?
KROGSTAD:
Your father was very sick; didn’t he die soon after that?
NORA:
Yes.
KROGSTAD:
Do you remember the date of your father’s death?
NORA:
October nineteenth.
KROGSTAD:
That’s right. And that leaves us with a problem.
NORA:
What problem?
KROGSTAD:
Your father signed this bond three days after his death.
44
NORA:
I don't understand--
KROGSTAD:
Your father died on October nineteenth. But your father dated his
signature October twenty-second. It’s quite the discrepancy, don’t you
think? (NORA is silent.) Can you explain it to me? (NORA is still
silent.) It’s also worth noting that the words are not written in your
father's handwriting, but in one I think I know. Your father could have
forgotten to date his signature, and someone else might have dated it
without thinking, before they knew of his death. There’s no harm in
that. It’s the signature itself. The signature is genuine, isn’t it, Mrs.
Helmer? It was your father who signed his name here?
NORA:
No. I wrote his name.
KROGSTAD:
Do you know how dangerous a confession that is?
NORA:
I couldn’t tell him that my husband’s life was in danger, not in his
condition.
KROGSTAD:
You should have given up your holiday.
NORA:
That trip saved my husband's life.
KROGSTAD:
Mrs. Helmer, I don’t think you understand what you’re guilty of. My
one false step ruined my whole reputation, and it was no worse than
this.
NORA:
Are you asking me to believe that you took a risk like that to save your
wife’s life?
KROGSTAD:
The law isn’t concerned with motives.
NORA:
Then the law is stupid.
KROGSTAD:
Stupid or not, if I show this paper to the court, you’ll be judged by it.
NORA:
I don't believe that. Isn’t a daughter allowed to protect her dying father
from worry? Isn’t a wife allowed to save her husband's life?
KROGSTAD:
Do what you want. But if I get thrown into the gutter again, I will take
you with me. (He bows, and goes out through the hall.)
NORA busies herself decorating the tree.
HELMER enters with a bundle of papers under his arm.
NORA:
Back already?
HELMER:
Has anyone been here?
45
NORA:
Here? No.
HELMER:
I saw Krogstad going through the gate.
NORA:
Oh. He came back in for a minute.
HELMER:
He asked you to put in a good word for him.
NORA:
Yes.
HELMER:
And to pretend it was your idea?
NORA:
Yes, but--
HELMER:
Talking to a man like that, and making promises –- and then, to lie to
me.
NORA:
Lie--?
HELMER:
(Shakes his finger at her.): Never do that again. You’re my little
songbird, Nora. And songbirds need clean beaks to sing with. (Puts
his arm round her waist.) Don’t you think? (Lets her go. He takes a
deep breath. He looks at his papers.)
NORA:
(after a short pause, during which she busies herself with the
Christmas Tree.): Torvald.
HELMER:
What?
NORA:
I can’t wait for Stenborgs’ party.
HELMER:
And I can’t wait to see what you’re going to surprise me with.
NORA:
I can't think of anything to wear; the whole thing is ridiculous.
HELMER:
Is it?
NORA:
(standing behind his chair with her arms on the back of it). Are you
really busy, Torvald?
HELMER:
Well--
NORA:
What are all those papers?
HELMER:
Bank business.
NORA:
Already?
HELMER:
I have to get everything set up for the New Year.
46
NORA:
So that’s why this Krogstad--
HELMER:
Hm.
NORA:
(leans against the back of his chair and strokes his hair): If you
weren’t so busy I’d ask you for a huge favour.
HELMER:
What’s that?
NORA:
Torvald, could you tell me what to wear for the party?
HELMER:
Does my independent little woman need a man to rescue her?
NORA:
I need your help.
HELMER:
I’ll think it over.
NORA:
Was it really that bad, what Krogstad did?
HELMER:
He forged someone's name.
NORA:
What if it was some kind of emergency?
HELMER:
He probably just didn’t think –- that’s what usually happens. But I’d
never judge someone for one mistake.
NORA:
Of course not.
HELMER:
Many men have managed to save their integrity by owning up to their
mistake and living with the consequences.
NORA:
Consequences--?
HELMER:
But Krogstad tried to trick his way out of it; that’s what destroyed him.
NORA is speechless.
HELMER:
A guilty man like that has to lie, and wear a mask for everyone, even
his own wife and children -- that’s the real tragedy.
NORA:
Why?
HELMER:
Lies infect every corner of the home.
NORA:
(coming nearer him). How do you know that?
HELMER:
Most mothers of young criminals are pathological liars.
NORA:
Just the mothers?
47
HELMER:
A dishonest father is the same. This Krogstad has been poisoning his
own children; morally, he’s dead. (Holds out his hands to her.)
Promise you won’t plead his case.
NORA hesitates; Helmer moves closer, being subtly intimidating.
NORA backs away in silence.
HELMER:
That's settled. I’ll think about your costume. And I just might have
something in gold paper to hang on the tree. (Puts his hand on her
head.)
(He goes into his study and shuts the door after him.)
NORA:
(after a pause, whispers): It’s not possible.
ACT II
The Christmas Tree is in the corner, stripped of its ornaments and with burnt-down
candle-ends on its dishevelled branches. A cardboard box sits off to the side. NORA
walks restlessly to and fro. She stops by the sofa and picks up her coat. She drops the
coat again.
NORA:
No one will come on Christmas day.
NORA goes to the front door and checks the letterbox. Finding
nothing, she walks across the room.
NORA unpacks clothes from the box, but soon throws them down
again.
The doorbell RINGS. NORA jumps up and goes to answer it; it is
MRS. LINDE.
NORA:
Christine. I’m glad you’re here. Is anyone else out there?
MRS. LINDE:
I heard you were asking for me.
NORA:
I was hoping you could help me. Tomorrow night our neighbours are
having a dress ball and Torvald wants me to do the dance I learned
on our trip.
MRS. LINDE:
You’re going to perform?
NORA:
Torvald said I should. Here’s the dress, but it’s torn--
MRS. LINDE:
It’s just some loose stitching. Needle and thread?
48
NORA fetches needle and thread and gives them to MRS. LINDE,
who starts to sew.
NORA:
You’re so sweet.
MRS. LINDE:
Tomorrow I’ll have to come by and see how you look.
MRS. LINDE notices Nora’s nervous pacing. MRS. LINDE goes to her
and puts her hands on her shoulders. NORA is still.
NORA:
I have to get out of this loan.
MRS. LINDE goes back to her sewing.
NORA:
It’s a lot easier for a man to take care of these things.
MRS. LINDE:
A man like your husband?
NORA:
When you pay off a debt you get your bond back, don't you?
MRS. LINDE:
Of course.
NORA:
And you can tear it into a thousand pieces.
MRS. LINDE:
There’s something you’re not telling me.
A rustling sound from the hall. HELMER puts away some papers and
goes to the study door.
NORA:
That's Torvald. Could you go in the nursery? He hates to see sewing
lying around.
MRS. LINDE:
I’m not leaving until we talk about this.
MRS. LINDE goes to the nursery as Torvald enters from the hall.
NORA:
(going up to HELMER): I’ve been waiting for you.
HELMER:
Who was that?
NORA:
Christine’s helping me fix my dress. I’m going to look just like I did on
our trip.
HELMER:
So you admit it was a great idea?
NORA:
As long as you admit it was nice of me to do what you wanted.
HELMER:
Nice –-? to do what your husband wants?
49
NORA:
What if I asked you for something very, very nicely — Would you do
it?
HELMER:
I’d like to know what it is first.
NORA:
I’d do all my tricks for you.
HELMER:
What is it?
NORA:
I’d make all your worries disappear.
HELMER:
You do that already.
NORA:
I would dance for you, Torvald.
HELMER:
I hope you’re not talking about what we discussed this morning?
NORA:
Yes.
HELMER:
How can you bring that up again?
NORA:
You have to let Krogstad keep his job.
HELMER:
I’m giving it to Christine.
NORA:
Oh. Couldn’t you get rid of one of the other clerks instead?
HELMER:
Just because you decided to make a promise--
NORA:
He could hurt you.
HELMER:
You’re afraid because of what happened to your father.
NORA:
Don’t you remember how the newspapers slandered him? He would
have lost his job if the Department hadn’t sent you to investigate.
HELMER:
But your father did not have flawless reputation. I do.
NORA:
Who knows what these people will dig up?
HELMER:
People at the bank already know I’m letting him go. What if they heard
that their new manager changed his mind because of his wife?
NORA:
What if they did?
HELMER:
They’d laugh. I’d feel the consequences. Besides, there’s something
else.
NORA:
What’s that?
50
HELMER:
We were friends at school. We’re on first name terms, and he doesn’t
try to hide it. All day long it’s “Torvald this” and “Torvald that”. It’d be
unbearable.
NORA:
You can’t mean that.
HELMER:
Why not?
NORA:
Because it’s so petty.
HELMER:
You think I am petty?
NORA:
No, I don’t. That’s why—
HELMER:
I’m putting an end to this right now.
HELMER puts on his coat.
NORA:
Where are you going?
HELMER:
To finalize Krogstad's dismissal.
NORA:
You don’t know what he could do to us.
HELMER:
I find it insulting that you think I should be afraid of him. Whatever
happens, you can be sure I’m man enough to handle whatever he
throws at either of us.
NORA:
You would never have to do that.
HELMER:
Alright, then we’ll face the attack together, as man and wife. Are you
happy now? You’re letting your imagination run away with you. You’d
better go and practice your dance.
HELMER leaves.
NORA:
There must be some way out.
**Note: the story requires a sense of time passing here**
There is a KNOCK at the door. NORA lets KROGSTAD in.
NORA:
What do you want?
KROGSTAD:
I assume you know I’ve been fired.
NORA:
I couldn't stop it.
KROGSTAD:
Does your husband know what I could do to you?
51
NORA:
What do you want?
KROGSTAD:
To see how you are, Mrs. Helmer. Even lowly cashiers and moneylenders have feelings.
NORA:
Think about my children.
KROGSTAD:
Have you and your husband thought about mine? But let’s not worry
about that. I know we can resolve this as friends.
NORA:
My husband can’t ever know.
KROGSTAD:
How will you prevent that? Can you pay the balance you owe me?
NORA:
Not right now.
KROGSTAD:
It doesn’t matter anyway. If you had all the money in the world I
wouldn’t give your bond back.
NORA:
What are you going to do with it?
KROGSTAD:
Keep it. No one else will ever hear about it. So if you’re thinking of
doing anything desperate--
NORA:
I am.
KROGSTAD:
--like running away--
NORA:
I said I am.
KROGSTAD:
Or worse--
NORA:
How did you--
KROGSTAD:
Forget about it.
NORA:
How did you know I’d thought of that?
KROGSTAD:
Most people think of that at first. I did-- but I didn’t have the courage.
NORA:
Neither do I.
KROGSTAD:
It’s a ridiculous idea anyway. Once the first big fight is over-- I have a
letter for your husband.
NORA:
You’re telling him?
KROGSTAD:
As delicately as possible.
NORA:
Tear it up. I’ll find the money.
52
KROGSTAD:
I don’t want money.
NORA:
Then what?
KROGSTAD:
I want to rebuild my life. I was happy to work my way up slowly. But
now that I’ve been kicked off the ladder again, being hired back isn’t
enough. Your husband will find a higher position for me—
NORA:
He’ll never do that!
KROGSTAD:
Within a year it will be Nils Krogstad running that Bank.
NORA:
You’ve just given me enough courage to do anything.
KROGSTAD:
Under the ice? Down in the cold, black water?
NORA:
You can't frighten me.
KROGSTAD:
Don’t do anything stupid. Your reputation would be in my hands.
When Torvald gets my letter, he’ll find me and I’ll explain everything.
He’s forcing me to do this.
KROGSTAD lets himself out. NORA locks the door.
The letter falls into the letter-box.
NORA stifles a cry.
MRS. LINDE enters from the nursery with Nora’s costume.
MRS. LINDE:
Would you like to try it on--?
NORA:
Christine--
MRS. LINDE:
What is it?
NORA indicates the letter-box.
NORA:
There’s a letter there. From Krogstad
MRS. LINDE:
Nils lent you the money?
NORA:
And now Torvald’s going to find out.
MRS. LINDE:
That's the best thing for both of you.
NORA:
I forged a name to get the money.
MRS. LINDE:
Oh no!
53
NORA:
Christine -- you have to be my witness.
MRS. LINDE:
What do you mean?
NORA:
If someone else wanted to take the blame for me -- you understand--?
MRS. LINDE:
But what makes you think--?
NORA:
Then you can tell everyone that I did it on my own.
MRS. LINDE:
Alright. But I don't understand.
NORA:
How could you understand? A miracle is going to happen!
MRS. LINDE:
A miracle?
NORA:
But I can’t let it happen.
MRS. LINDE:
I’ll find Nils.
NORA:
Don't--
MRS. LINDE:
There was a time when he would do anything for me.
HELMER arrives home. He opens the front door and walks in.
NORA:
No!
HELMER covers his eyes and comically moves across the room
towards the door to his study.
HELMER:
It’s alright. I can’t see a thing. Are you wearing your dress?
NORA:
I’m going to look so beautiful, Torvald.
HELMER goes into his study and closes the door.
NORA:
It’s hopeless. The letter’s already in the box.
MRS. LINDE:
And Torvald has the key?
NORA:
Always.
MRS. LINDE:
What if Nils asked for his letter back unread?
NORA:
But he’ll open the box any minute.
MRS. LINDE:
Go in and distract him. I’ll come back.
MRS. LINDE hurries out.
54
HELMER:
(from the study): Well? Can I come into my own room again?
After a moment of silence, HELMER walks in.
HELMER:
Nora, you look exhausted. Have you been practising too much?
NORA:
I haven’t practised at all.
HELMER:
But you need to--
NORA:
I can't get anywhere without you.
HELMER:
We’ll get it.
NORA:
Help me, Torvald. Please? I’m so nervous -- all those people. I need
you all to myself tonight. Can’t you forget about the bank? Don’t even
pick up a pen. Promise?
HELMER:
I promise. Tonight I will be devoted to my little wife. But first—
HELMER goes to open the letter-box.
NORA:
What are you doing?
HELMER:
Checking for letters.
NORA:
No!
HELMER:
Why?
NORA:
There’s nothing there.
HELMER:
Just let me look.
HELMER moves towards the letter-box.
NORA runs to the piano and plays the first bars of the Tarantella.
HELMER turns toward her.
NORA:
I can't dance tomorrow if we don't practise.
HELMER goes to her.
NORA:
Play for me; direct me as you play.
HELMER sits down at the piano. NORA seizes the tambourine and a
long multi-coloured shawl from the cardboard box, wraps it hastily
around her, then takes a quick leap into the centre of the room.
55
HELMER plays and NORA dances.
NORA dances more and more wildly. HELMER tries to counteract this
by playing more and more ploddingly, and then by beating a slower
rhythm on the piano with his hand.
It is a tug of war between Nora’s wildness and Helmer’s control.
NORA does not notice Helmer’s correction, but dances more and
more wildly. Her hair works loose and falls over her shoulders.
MRS. LINDE enters and stands in the doorway, tongue-tied. NORA
notices her and stops dancing.
NORA:
We’re having so much fun, Christine!
HELMER:
You look like you’re dancing for your life.
NORA:
I am.
HELMER:
You’ve forgotten everything I taught you.
NORA:
You see how much I need you? You have to lead me through the
whole thing.
HELMER:
Don’t worry.
NORA:
I don’t want you to think of anything but me; don't open a single letter - not even the letter-box-
HELMER:
You’re still afraid of that man--
NORA:
Of course I am.
HELMER:
There’s a letter from him, isn’t there?
NORA:
Don’t read anything now. I don’t want anything to come between us
until this is over.
HELMER:
(taking her in his arms): Alright. But tomorrow night, after you’ve
danced--
NORA:
Then you’ll be free.
NORA opens a bottle of champagne and pours a glass. Then she
puts some macaroons out on a plate. She gives both to HELMER.
NORA:
You go and relax. Christine, would you help me put up my hair?
HELMER takes the champagne and macaroons into the dining room.
56
NORA:
Well?
MRS. LINDE:
He’s out of town.
NORA sighs in despair.
MRS. LINDE:
He’ll be home tomorrow night. I left him a note.
NORA:
You should have left it alone. I mean, it is exciting to be waiting for a
miracle.
MRS. LINDE:
What are you waiting for?
NORA:
You wouldn't understand. Go and sit with Torvald. I’ll be right there.
MRS. LINDE goes into the dining room.
NORA stands and collects herself. She looks at her watch.
NORA:
(whispering): Seven hours until midnight; and then another twentyfour and the party will be over. Thirty-one hours to live.
ACT III
A lamp is burning on the table. The door into the hall stands open. Dance music is heard
in the room above. MRS. LINDE is sitting at the table idly turning over the leaves of a
book; she tries to read, but does not seem able to collect her thoughts. Every now and
then she listens intently for a sound at the outer door.
There is a soft knock at the door. MRS. LINDE rises quickly and goes into the hall to
answer it. She re-enters with KROGSTAD. KROGSTAD holds up Mrs. Linde’s letter.
KROGSTAD:
What is this about?
MRS. LINDE:
I have to talk to you.
KROGSTAD:
Here?
MRS. LINDE:
The Helmers are at a party upstairs.
KROGSTAD:
Do we really have anything to talk about?
MRS. LINDE:
You’ve never understood me.
KROGSTAD:
What’s there to understand? –- A woman trades in one man for a
richer one.
MRS. LINDE:
You didn’t think it broke my heart?
57
KROGSTAD:
Not after what you wrote to me.
MRS. LINDE:
I had to leave; I thought ruining your feelings for me would make it
easier.
KROGSTAD:
All that, for money!
MRS. LINDE:
I had a helpless mother and two little brothers. We couldn't wait for
your prospects to come in, Nils.
KROGSTAD:
You had no right to abandon me for someone else’s sake.
MRS. LINDE:
I’ve asked myself about that again and again.
KROGSTAD:
I’m desperate.
MRS. LINDE:
Help is closer than you think.
KROGSTAD:
It was close; then you came.
MRS. LINDE:
I didn’t know I’d be taking your place.
KROGSTAD:
But now that you know, you’re not going to give it up?
MRS. LINDE:
Life has taught me to be practical.
KROGSTAD:
Life has taught me not to believe in speeches.
MRS. LINDE:
Why do you think I came here?
KROGSTAD:
You don’t expect me to believe it was for me?
MRS. LINDE:
You said that with me you could have been a different person.
KROGSTAD:
That’s true.
MRS. LINDE:
Is it too late?
KROGSTAD:
Do you really want to get involved with someone who--?
MRS. LINDE:
I want to be a mother, and your children need one. We all need each
other.
KROGSTAD grasps her hands.
MRS. LINDE:
(listening): Shh! That must be Nora’s dance. Go!
KROGSTAD:
But wait! You don’t know what I’ve done--
MRS. LINDE:
Yes I do.
58
KROGSTAD:
I’d take it back if I could.
MRS. LINDE:
Your note is still in the letter-box.
KROGSTAD:
I’ll ask for it back.
MRS. LINDE:
No.
KROGSTAD:
I thought that was why you wanted to see me.
MRS. LINDE:
It was. Yesterday. But this secret needs to be told; they need to
understand each other.
LINDE hears them coming down.
MRS. LINDE:
Go!
KROGSTAD:
I’ll wait for you.
MRS. LINDE:
Good.
KROGSTAD leaves.
MRS. LINDE tidies the room and gets her hat and coat.
sighs happily.
She
Helmer’s and Nora’s struggle becomes audible. A key turns in the lock
and HELMER leads NORA forcibly into the room.
NORA:
(hanging back in the doorway, and struggling with him):
Please, Torvald –- one more hour.
HELMER leads NORA [roughly], despite her efforts to resist him, into
the room.
NORA:
Christine!
Immediately HELMER adopts a playful tone with NORA.
MRS. LINDE:
Yes, I’m sorry; I was so anxious to see Nora in her
dress.
NORA:
Half an hour. Torvald!
HELMER:
Listen to her, Mrs. Linde! Her dance brought the house down. Do you
think I was going to let her stay and ruin the effect?
HELMER throws his cloak on a chair and goes to light a few candles.
59
MRS. LINDE:
(in a low voice): We talked.
NORA:
And?
MRS. LINDE:
You have nothing to worry about from Nils; but you have to tell
Torvald.
NORA:
I can’t.
MRS. LINDE:
Then the letter will.
HELMER:
(coming in again). Well, Mrs. Linde, have you finished admiring her
yet?
MRS. LINDE:
Yes. Well, goodnight, Nora. And don't be stubborn.
HELMER:
That’s good advice.
MRS. LINDE:
Goodnight, Mr. Helmer.
MRS. LINDE goes. HELMER closes the door behind her.
HELMER:
Finally.
NORA:
Aren't you tired?
HELMER:
Not at all.
NORA:
I’m very tired.
HELMER:
I was right not to let you stay.
NORA:
You’re always right, Torvald.
HELMER:
(kissing her on the forehead): Now my girl is talking like a grown-up.
NORA:
Don't look at me like that.
HELMER:
Why shouldn't I look at my own wife?
NORA goes around to the other side of the table.
HELMER follows her.
HELMER:
When I watched you dance, my blood caught fire.
HELMER approaches NORA again.
60
HELMER advances; NORA retreats. HELMER gives up, takes his
keys out of his pocket and goes to the letter-box.
Before he can get it open, NORA goes to him, a little seductively, to
distract him. HELMER stops trying to get the letters and embraces
her.
HELMER:
Sometimes I wish that you were in some kind of danger, so that I
could risk everything for you.
NORA tears herself loose.
NORA:
Read your letters.
HELMER moves towards her.
NORA moves even further away.
HELMER:
This trouble with Krogstad has upset both of us. Good night.
NORA:
Read them.
HELMER opens the box, looks through the letters, finds Krogstad’s
and reads it.
NORA, indecisive, starts for the door.
HELMER steps in front of her, forcing her back into the room.
HELMER:
Do you know what’s in this letter?
NORA:
Let me go.
HELMER:
Where?
NORA:
Don’t try to save me, Torvald.
HELMER:
Is this true?
NORA:
I won’t let you suffer for my sake.
HELMER:
Do you understand what you’ve done?
NORA:
Yes.
HELMER:
For eight years -- my pride and joy: a liar -– worse, a criminal.
NORA is silent and stares unblinkingly at him.
61
HELMER:
I should have seen this coming. No morality, no sense of duty. I am in
the power of a corrupt man; and all because of a thoughtless woman!
NORA:
When I’m gone, you’ll be free.
HELMER:
He can make the whole thing public any time. People will think I was
behind it. Do you understand what you’ve done to me?
NORA:
Yes.
HELMER:
I have to keep this quiet, whatever it costs. You’ll stay in the house,
but I won’t allow you to raise the children. I can’t trust you with them.
A letter falls into the letter-box.
NORA does not move.
HELMER goes to the box and gets the letter. He reads it quickly. He
holds up a piece of paper that was enclosed in the letter.
HELMER:
Nora, I am saved!
NORA:
What about me?
HELMER:
Both of us. Look, he sent your bond back. He’s sorry – some good
thing has changed his life. (Tears up the bond) These past three days
must have been awful for you.
NORA:
I’ve fought hard.
HELMER:
Let’s not think about it anymore. It's all over. I’ve forgiven you, Nora. I
have. I know that you did it out of love.
NORA:
That’s true.
HELMER:
You’ve loved me the way a wife should love her husband. You just
didn’t know how to act on it. Your helplessness makes you even more
beautiful. I can guide you. Forget about those things I said. I have
forgiven you, Nora.
NORA:
Thank you for your forgiveness.
NORA goes into her room and starts to change.
HELMER:
What are you doing in there?
NORA:
(from within): Taking off my dress.
62
HELMER:
(standing at the open door): Yes, do that. Nora, it’s so satisfying for a
man to know that he has forgiven his wife. It makes you mine twice
over because, in a way, I’ve given you a new life; so you’ve becomes
my wife and my child. (He looks in on her.) You’re not in bed. Have
you changed?
NORA:
(in everyday dress): Yes, Torvald.
HELMER:
But why?
NORA:
I have something to say.
HELMER:
I don't understand.
NORA:
And I have never understood you. Until tonight.
HELMER:
What do you mean?
NORA:
We’ve been married eight years, and this is our first serious
conversation.
HELMER:
But, why would we need to--
NORA:
When I lived with Dad, he passed all his ideas down to me. He called
me his little doll, and he played with me, just like I played with my
dolls. And when I came here--
HELMER:
How can you say that about our marriage?
NORA:
I was simply passed from Dad’s hands into yours. I perform tricks for
you so I can eat and sleep in your bed.
HELMER:
Haven’t you been happy?
NORA:
Only cheerful. I’ve been your doll-wife; and the children have been my
dolls. It was always fun when you came in and played with me. That’s
what our marriage has been.
HELMER:
But now it’ll be different. The time has come for education.
NORA:
Whose education?
HELMER:
Yours and the children's.
NORA:
But I’m not worthy to raise the children.
HELMER:
I was upset.
NORA:
You were right. First I have to educate myself. And you’re not the man
to help me with that. That’s why I’m leaving you.
63
HELMER:
You’re out of your mind! I won't allow it!
NORA:
There’s no point in not allowing it. I’ll only take what’s mine.
HELMER:
You have no sense.
NORA:
Then I’d better try to get some sense, Torvald.
HELMER:
You’d really neglect your most sacred duties?
NORA:
What are my most sacred duties?
HELMER:
Your duties to your husband and children.
NORA:
I have a duty to myself.
HELMER:
First and foremost, you are a wife and a mother.
NORA:
First and foremost, I am a human being. I need to think things through
for myself.
HELMER:
Listen to your own conscience. Don’t you have any sense of morality?
NORA:
You and I look at these things differently. You think a woman has no
right to protect her dying father, or to save her husband's life. I can't
believe that.
HELMER:
You’re out of your mind.
NORA:
I’ve never been so sane.
HELMER:
Then you must not love me anymore.
NORA:
No. I don’t. The miracle didn’t happen.
HELMER:
What are you talking about?
NORA:
When Krogstad's letter was sitting in the box, I knew that you would
take responsibility for the whole thing.
HELMER:
Nora!
NORA:
That was the miracle I was hoping for, and dreading; and I was ready
to kill myself to stop it.
HELMER:
I would gladly work night and day for you, Nora. But no man would
sacrifice his honour, even for the one he loves.
NORA:
Millions of women have done it.
64
HELMER:
You’re talking like a child.
NORA:
You weren’t afraid for me. You were afraid of what would happen to
you. For eight years I’ve been living with a stranger.
HELMER:
Some distance has opened up between us, but don’t you think we can
cross it?
NORA:
I’m no wife for you.
HELMER:
I can change.
NORA:
Maybe -- if your doll is taken away from you.
NORA goes into her room and comes back with a small
travelling bag, which she sets down by the door.
HELMER:
Wait ‘til tomorrow.
NORA:
(putting on her cloak): I can’t spend the night in a strange man's
house. I don’t want to see the children. I know they’re in better hands
than mine.
HELMER:
Think about this.
NORA takes off her wedding ring and offers it to HELMER. After a long
hesitation, he reciprocates.
NORA goes out through the front door.
THE END
65
Appendix C.
DVD: Monitoring [A Doll’s House] Video Files
Credits
Concept and Direction: Pegah Tabassinejad
Project Counselor: Bojan Bodružic
Stage Manager: Cherry Song
Technical Director: Jonathan Kim
Performers: Angela Ferreira, Aryo Khakpour, Victoria Lyons, Daniel O’Shea,
Gina Readman, Natalie Schneck, Benjamin Stone
Dramaturgue: Steve Neufeld
Assistant Director: Nazli Akhtari
Set: Emily Neufeld
Sound: Nancy Tam
New Media/ Projection: Sammy Chien
Video: Nima Soofi, Bahar Nourizadeh and Bojan Bodružic
Lighting: Jonathan Kim
Costume: Pardis Tabassinejad
Documentation: Bahar Nourizadeh and Bojan Bodružic
Description
This DVD contains the three video files of my thesis project Monitoring [A Doll’s House], shown
as a 50 hours durational project, including three scheduled performances based on Henrik
Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, and a live ongoing installation in between the scheduled performances at
Studio T, Simon Fraser University. The first DVD is the documentation of the performance and
the rest are the edited versions of couple of different hours of the installation. DVD#2 and DVD#3
shows the performers’ performance at home (on Skype) and DVD#4 shows the installation view
at Studio T.
Filenames
• Video 01: Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Performance Video, Pegah
Tabassinejad, 4 cameras, 01:00:49 hr., 2012.
• Video 02: Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Installation Video#1 (Actors), Pegah
Tabassinejad, 03:52:07 hr., 2012.
• Video 03: Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Sample of Laptop Records, Pegah
Tabassinejad, 01:45:44 hr., 2012.
• Video 04: Monitoring [A Doll’s House], Installation Video #2 (The Whole view),
Pegah Tabassinejad, 01:07:09 hr., 2012.
66